Roman Legions VS wussy US army in a meele (non shooting) combat

[DJFuji]

Good god you people. There should be prerequisites to threads before posting is allowed. So if you enter a "YAGT", you can only post if you've not a virgin. Or if you go into a YACT, you can only post if you know cars. And lastly, if you're a dumbass, you're restricted from posting in any thread except ones involving spiders.

Some of you people are stating (fallacious) opinions like they're facts and it's horribly illogical. Have you people ever SEEN the Army? Half of them are overweight! The romans would crush the army, assuming a 1:1 ratio. They are better disciplined, physically stronger, better trained, and mentally and physicall TOUGHER. I'd be willing to bet money that you'd have hordes of soldiers from the army that would RUN from the fight once they saw people get slaughtered on the battlefield. In fact, there's probably no sizable, modern military unit that would stand a chance in hand to hand combat against the romans.

Of course, it's also unfair to make such a comparison because the army is not designed to fight hand to hand. It's like saying who would win a street fight, a boxer or a chess player?

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: pnho
If the roman legions were attacking the usa, then the us army would win given the equivalent weapons. Why? The us army would be defending homefront, this gives them more incentive to fight harder against invaders. Furthermore, the romans will be unfamiliar with the terrain. The us army will have that advantage vs. roman discipline/training. Plus who said the us army would face them head on in the battlefield when they could hamstring them down using guerrilla attacks. And if all else fails, throw the romans a blanket tainted with the common cold and watch them all sneeze to death.

you're joking, right? I refuse to believe that you're being serious with this. The most sense you've made is the thing about the common cold. Guerilla attacks? With swords and shields? What are they going to do, hide the entire US army behind rocks on the battlefield and hope tha the romans walk right by them so they can jump out and smack them over the head? Guerilla warfare is largely suited to somewhat modern day combat. Since the scenario here is that it's strictly non-shooting weapons, the army would get its ass handed to them.

Now pit the legions against the samurai from feudal japan, and you have a good fight.

 

[zzzz]

you forgot poland.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Kelvrick Plus, our guys wouldn't be that much bigger/stronger then the roman soldiers. You'd have to go back further thne that for significant differences, and these are their soldiers, not their common peasants.

That, and I don't think our modern soldiers can live with the way people die during these battles.

people in the 1500s were about a foot shorter than the average american.

Not really.

Average height of an adult male now is 5'10"- 6'. Average height going back 2000 years is 5'6" - 5'8".

I think your numbers are off. In fact I read today that the average infantryman back in the 14th century was barely over 5 feet.

Anyway, taller, larger people are better at fighting, but that doesn't change the fact that one guy with a sword and training to use it will be at larger and stronger guy who has no idea.

I read somewhere that the average Roman soldier was larger than the average Briton (average Brit was around 5 foot tall) at that time. There have been several digs that confirm the theory.

The misconception is that most people think of ancient man size?they automatically think of Anglo Saxon.

A Roman Warrior found in the ancient city of Winchester @ 5'10" - 5'11" (1.78 - 1.80m) in height.

Natural foot - 9.8 inches (approx) Anglo-Saxon : Roman foot - 11.6 inches (approx) Roman.

Ramesses was nearly five foot nine inches tall, which meant he was a good four inches taller than the average Egyptian man.

 

[Turkish]

Ottoman's > *

History proves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: FleshLight
Triariae is the roman equivalent to Delta Force. With 2 Triariae legions, they can take over the entire US in a matter of days.

I dont think the roman legions can traverse all of the US in a matter of days.

Nor do they have the number.

It wasn't stated how many legions there are. Each legion is 5300 men.

He said 2 legions, so that would be 10,600 men (unless those are different sizes, I know zero about this stuff).

10,600 men on horses couldn't land in Miami and make it past Georgia in a week. Besides, no matter how good they are, a gun will still kill them long before they can do anything.

Augustus actually inherited some 60 legions after the battle of Actium (31BC ) but soon reduced this to 28 (c.150,000men) in the interests of political security and his bank...auxiliaries also numbered over 150,000 men in total balance